- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 09:07:59 -0400
- To: charlie@semantech.org
- Cc: "www-ws@w3.org" <www-ws@w3.org>
On Tuesday, September 9, 2003, at 01:12 AM, charlie@semantech.org wrote: > > I have checked that out, thanks. To what extent can one automate such > composition process? To varying extents, I'd guess. In part, our composer provides some (assisted) automation. Of course, it's only composing sequences (one with more complex control constructs on the way, and see sheila's) We're investigating various ways to extend the *kind* of automation as well. > Also it seems to me that not being able to make use of the > control constructs in the final composition is restrictive and does > not take > advantage of the expressive potential of the process model. Well, it is restrictive, no doubt. But it's also surprisingly useful :) Our work with the SHOP planner also generates only sequences, but that's something of an artifact. It's perfectly possible to generate conditional plans (for example). In shop, you could record the decisions (or some decisions) made in the task network. That's easy enough. So, one can have fully automated generatiion of DAML-S processes with interesting control constructs (I'm sure other planning methodologies or systems could do some of this, but I'm not up on them at the moment). However, it might be less exciting that you might hope for. It's not magic. It's not like the planner can magically write interesting programs to do interesting things that you, the user, didn't even know you wanted to see done. For an HTN planner, you need a considerable body of methods for the planner to work against, and some substantial set of them have to have been hand crafted (feeding back the results of the planner, even with conditional plans, can only increase the efficiently of finding a solution, not increase the solution space). Hope this helps. Cheers, Bijan Parsia.
Received on Tuesday, 9 September 2003 09:02:05 UTC